Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Please feel free to show where in NASA's very small budget, is there room to waste millions of dollars for pictures that serve no real purpose other than to be called photoshopped by uneducated conspiracy theorists?

NASA is studying the VA Belts, more than 40 years after astronauts supposedly go through them, over and over again, no problem! But that's not a waste of money, right?

You think it's a waste of money to see Apollo landing sites in close-up...

Scientists don't care about detailed close-up images, but they do care about images from 50 km away!

Such setails are useless to scientists, right?

Not.

Originally posted by turbonium1
NASA is studying the VA Belts, more than 40 years after astronauts supposedly go through them, over and over again, no problem! But that's not a waste of money, right?

It really isn't a waste of money considering that someday people will need to travel through the Van Allen Belts again -- maybe relatively soon. The Apollo astronauts' exposure to danger from the Van Allen belts were only minimized by the short time they spent in them, but they were STILL exposed to some danger. It would be good to know more about the belts to minimize that danger even more for future manned spaceflight beyond Earth.

You think it's a waste of money to see Apollo landing sites in close-up...

Scientists don't care about detailed close-up images, but they do care about images from 50 km away!
Such setails are useless to scientists, right?

Not.

Well, the mission of the LRO spacecraft was to map the entire Moon with 50 cm (or sometimes better) resolution. The Apollo landing sites just happen to be on the Moon, and thus were included in that mapping mission.

It's not like the LRO's specific mission is to take pictures of the Apollo hardware.

reply to post by turbonium1


I think making sure GPS and telecommunications satellites won't fail due to radiation exposure is several orders of magnitude more important than pictures of things that we already know exactly what they look like, yes. If I want to see close up pictures of the apollo landing sites I'll look at the thousands of pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts.

I'm curious to know, what you personally think would be beneficial of having greater than 50cm resolution photographs to scientists studying the moon. We're not talking about legal surveys or civil engineering here, pinpoint accuracy is somewhat overkill.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by ppk55

So we've all agreed it's possible to identify car sized objects from a satellite. So why can't we see larger than car sized objects on the moon? No atmosphere, lower orbit ... as I wrote, it just doesn't make sense.

edit on 10-4-2013 by ppk55 because: more info

That's why they use lame excuses - because it makes no sense.

This would be true if it were true.

Actually, they CAN see car-sized Apollo-hardware on the Moon using the LRO orbiter. In fact, they can see things smaller than car-sized (such as the backpacks worn by the astronauts) and have pictures of them.



As for using spy satellite technology for moon pictures? I'm not sure why they would need to spend money on expensive spy satellite technology (some of it is probably too classified for NASA engineers to know about, anyway) when all the LRO is supposed to do is map out future possible landing sites.

They don't need spy satellite technology for that. LRO's 30 to 50 cm resolution is good enough for that purpose.

edit on 4/12/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

NASA wants a (so-called return) to the moon, with a plan (eventually) to stay for a year or more .

What are the (possible) effects of living within this environment, for a few weeks, or months, or a year? What about over a few decades? NASA might need to know that, before the missions go ahead.

We (supposedly) have six different sites within the lunar environment, for 40+ years. Totally untouched except by environment, it's a (near) perfect site for studying ...times six!

The (supposed) landing sites represent one of our greatest achievements, perhaps THE greatest, and nobody has a clue what the (alleged) sites really look like - not today, nor in the past 40+years .

.Such images could be a big boost for public support. It certainly wouldn't hurt it! That alone is a good enough reason for it.

Scientists wouldn't have to take a best guess anymore, They'd actually know how it looks - wowee!

We'd know how many micrometeorites hit the sites over that time, or estimate it.

Radiation effects would be better understood, too.


And I've barely scratched the surface - many more benefits than I've listed here...

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
It really isn't a waste of money considering that someday people will need to travel through the Van Allen Belts again -- maybe relatively soon. The Apollo astronauts' exposure to danger from the Van Allen belts were only minimized by the short time they spent in them, but they were STILL exposed to some danger. It would be good to know more about the belts to minimize that danger even more for future manned spaceflight beyond Earth.

edit on 4/12/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

We don't regress in knowledge or technology, we progress in those arenas going forward!.

Apollo didn't go anywhere near to the VA Belts, let alone fly through them. Their thin aluminum shell would become a coffin within these Belts.

The problem still exists today, and that's why NASA has two probes in the Belts,now, and through to 2016, or so.

And the problem may still exist by 2016, - that is merely the end date set for this project.

Alan Bean didn't even know what the VA Belts were. It is VA Belts, in olural (two belts). But he said VA Belt, as a singular (one belt), which is clearly incorrect.. He tried a bluff and it failed.

If he doesn't know the VA Belts even exist, he'd have no clue about where they are! He tried to bluff it, and exposed the hoax for his efforts. It was a bit puzzling, he didn't think they went out far enough to go through the VA Belt (one belt, not two) .

When he found out where the VA Belts actually were - he said 'well,then we must've gone through them'!
Sure you did, Alan, sure you did!!

And he just kept right on bluffing and blufiing......

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by turbonium1

 

I think making sure GPS and telecommunications satellites won't fail due to radiation exposure is several orders of magnitude more important than pictures of things that we already know exactly what they look like, yes. If I want to see close up pictures of the apollo landing sites I'll look at the thousands of pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts.

The satellites already worked well before NASA's project even started, and they still work. NASA's project has nothing to do with that. Why would NASA be trying to fix something that needs no fixing? And why would NASA spend a fortune on making others with their satellites anyway? If a satellite isn't NASA property ithen t isn't their problem In the first place, Do you think NASA is a charity group or something?

NASA ihelps out NASA, and nothing else matters to them. Period.
,
NASA wants to fly to the moon. That is clearly the reason NASA suddenly decided to start probing the VA Belts.

I know you won't understand this, but I've tried explaining it anyway.,

quote]Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by turbonium1


I'm curious to know, what you personally think would be beneficial of having greater than 50cm resolution photographs to scientists studying the moon. We're not talking about legal surveys or civil engineering here, pinpoint accuracy is somewhat overkill.

Originally posted by turbonium1
NASA wants a (so-called return) to the moon, with a plan (eventually) to stay for a year or more .

What are the (possible) effects of living within this environment, for a few weeks, or months, or a year? What about over a few decades? NASA might need to know that, before the missions go ahead.

When the LRO was designed and launched, there were greater plans for humans to return to the Moon. That's why they needed to do one of the first steps, which was to map the Moon in great detail -- and that's what the LRO did.

Since that time, though, the budget situation at NASA and the whole country in general has casued NASA to re-focus it's manned missions, and a base on the Moon no longer seems to be part of that plan, at least not for now.

All of those other possible dangers of living on and exploring the Moon long term are certainly something that any potential Moon base designers need to think about, but mapping the Moon was also important to first find out where those bases and exploration may go.

We (supposedly) have six different sites within the lunar environment, for 40+ years. Totally untouched except by environment, it's a (near) perfect site for studying ...times six!

The (supposed) landing sites represent one of our greatest achievements, perhaps THE greatest, and nobody has a clue what the (alleged) sites really look like - not today, nor in the past 40+years

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Each Apollo mission documented the landing sites pretty well while they were there -- pictures, maps, and geological characteristics, which are readily available to the public.

Since that time, spacecraft such as the LRO have taken pictures of those areas (along with the rest of the Moon) from orbit. The LRO images can make out small pieces of Apollo hardware and even the walking paths formed by the astronauts -- as well as hi-res pictures of the moonscape around those landing sites.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "and nobody has a clue what the (alleged) sites really look like".

We have very good pictures and maps of those sites, both from the ground and from orbit.

Radiation effects would be better understood, too.

Well, yeah. Although I'm not sure how this relates to the "Moon Hoax".

The Apollo missions did have the ALSEP experimentation package, which (among other things) measured solar wind radiation. However, If NASA would have moved forward with its plans to put people on the Moon long-term (months at a time), they would have needed to learn more about lunar radiation.

The LRO spacecraft in lunar orbit right now has an instrument called the "Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation" (or CRaTER), which is helping greatly in gaining knowledge about lunar radiation. But much more knowledge about the lunar environment in general would be needed before a Moon base could be manned long term.

Link:
Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (or CRaTER)

That knowledge needed even BEFORE living long-term on the moon is one reason sending people back to the Moon to live for weeks or months at a time would be very expensive. It's not just the money to set up the moon bases and getting the people there -- it's all of the up-front research (that costs money) that is required to be able to build the proper environments in which someone could live for months at a time.

The longer you live on the Moon, the more of a chance of a solar flare (something which did not occur during the very-short duration Apollo missions).

double post

Originally posted by turbonium1



Apollo didn't go anywhere near to the VA Belts, let alone fly through them. Their thin aluminum shell would become a coffin within these Belts.

According to the telemetry and radiometric data all Apollo missions flew through the VA belts and received low, yet safe doses of radiation. Would you be able to site any data to back up these two lies or are we just going to put them in the same pile as your "dutch moon rock" evidence?

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
It really isn't a waste of money considering that someday people will need to travel through the Van Allen Belts again -- maybe relatively soon. The Apollo astronauts' exposure to danger from the Van Allen belts were only minimized by the short time they spent in them, but they were STILL exposed to some danger. It would be good to know more about the belts to minimize that danger even more for future manned spaceflight beyond Earth.

edit on 4/12/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

We don't regress in knowledge or technology, we progress in those arenas going forward!.

Apollo didn't go anywhere near to the VA Belts, let alone fly through them. Their thin aluminum shell would become a coffin within these Belts.

Your knowledge of the Van Allen belts is incorrect if you think the astronauts did no "go anywhere near them". The Van Allen Belts surround the mid-section of the Earth, with the thickest sections of the belts 20° north and 20° south of the equator. The Apollo trajectories took them (generally -- because each mission had a different trajectory) 30° above the equator, which still took them through the belts, but through the thin edges of the belts.

Quite a bit of research had been done on the belts previously to the Apollo missions, so NASA knew where the belts were thinner, and planned the Apollo trajectories accordingly.

As for radiation in those parts of the belts, it was mainly high-energy protons and electrons, which could more easily be stopped with the Command Module's skin (thin aluminum and fibrous insulation), and well as what was being worn by the astronauts. Also, the time spent passing through the belts was kept to a minimum. Sure -- there is a risk involved due to higher-tha-normal exposure to radiation, but that exposure (and added risk) was purposefully minimized.

Your knowledge of the Van Allen radiation also seems to be lacking by the way you think thicker/denser metal shielding would be better shielding. In fact, it would be worse shielding for the types of radiation in the belts (not all radiation is the same).

You seem to be ignoring the Bremsstrahlung Effect (whether intentionally for the purpose of spreading disinformation, or because you are unaware of it). The Bremsstrahlung Effect (or Bremsstrahlung radiation) is gamma radiation that is created by the sudden deceleration of higher-energy particles -- such as the high energy photons and electrons present in the VA Belts.

This deceleration is caused by the high-energy particles encountering a dense metal, such as lead. So lead would be an AWFUL type of sheilding fo rthe types of radiation in the belts. Lead shielding would actually produce more deadly radiation due to the Bremsstrahlung Effect.

Bremsstrahlung Effect

The problem still exists today, and that's why NASA has two probes in the Belts,now, and through to 2016, or so.

And the problem may still exist by 2016, - that is merely the end date set for this project.

Well, yeah -- of course the "problem" still exists today. The Van Allen belts haven't gone anywhere, and have probably been around for billions of years. They are still researching the belts because someday humans may need to pass through them again if the want to explore beyond the Earth (such as manned missions to Mars or to an Asteroid).

Further research could possibly tell us how manned-spacecraft could possibly pass through thicker parts of the belts, in order to not have to go out of their way to make the special trajectories that Apollo was forced to do.

So I'm not sure how further research into the belts is some sort of evidence of an Apollo Hoax.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
When the LRO was designed and launched, there were greater plans for humans to return to the Moon. That's why they needed to do one of the first steps, which was to map the Moon in great detail -- and that's what the LRO did.

edit on 4/13/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

They had greater plans during the Apollo-era, too..

The early 1960s was a time of intense study of lunar base concepts. The Apollo program was being pursued with enthusiasm and vigor. Planners sought to find a way to transitionwith Apollo technologyfrom short-term manned visits to the Moon,to extended visits associated with semi-permanent lunar bases and colonies.

If you look at the chart on pg.50 of the document, you'll see the propsed timeline goes from 1970 to 1980.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here's another source - note the sentence in bold..

Phase 2: 1972 to 1973: This Lunar Exploration Phase would commence about two years after Apollo and consisted of four flights of the Extended LM (ELM), a modification of basic Apollo LM hardware. This assumed a decision was made to proceed with the ELM immediately after the first Apollo success and the prior completion of all engineering design. ELM missions extended lunar stay time to 3 or 4 days with landed payloads approaching 450 kg. Advanced ALSEP's and mobility devices would consume a major portion of this payload. Return of samples collected in geologic contexts remained a prime objective. Landing sites would be selected from available Lunar Orbiter photography but relaxation of the free-return constraint would open up sites outside the Apollo zone. A specific mission would be targeted to a specific site. This scenario corresponded to Apollo 15 to 17 as flown.

Phase 4: 1975-1976: This Lunar Surface Rendezvous and Exploration Phase nominally consisted of two dual-launch missions, although it was expected the program would continue on a build-up to a lunar base

www.astronautix.com...

So here we find out they (supposedly) had the ability to pick landing sites for long-term stays and moon bases by the time of Apollo. But 40 years later, the LRO is mapping the moon for those very same reasons!!.

So many conflicts are found when comparing Apollo-era projects and current-day projects. And the only way these conflicts can be resolved is by dismissing the claims of Apollo - every time. The LRO is not really repeating anything, it is doing it for the first time (in regard to potential landing sites).

Think about it - if we already have six landing sites, and Lunar Orbiter images for longer-term landingsites, LRO mapping would.certainly not be a requirement...So the Apollo claims have to be dismissed as false, as usual, for it to make any sense.

.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Each Apollo mission documented the landing sites pretty well while they were there -- pictures, maps, and geological characteristics, which are readily available to the public.

Since that time, spacecraft such as the LRO have taken pictures of those areas (along with the rest of the Moon) from orbit. The LRO images can make out small pieces of Apollo hardware and even the walking paths formed by the astronauts -- as well as hi-res pictures of the moonscape around those landing sites.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "and nobody has a clue what the (alleged) sites really look like".

We have very good pictures and maps of those sites, both from the ground and from orbit.

edit on 4/13/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

I'm talking about how important the (supposed) landing sites would be for studies, close-up images...today.

We supposedly have the close-up images of the sites, but they were taken during the actual missions (allegedly). Same with the geological samples.

NASA is telling us it wants to have moon bases some day, and that it's important to see what the long-term effects of being in that environment awould be. (sidenote: if that sounds a bit familiar, it's because those are the same plans made back in the Apollo era!)

Hey - why don't they just send unmanned probes to a landing site, take close-up photos of all the Apollo equipment, and collect more soil samples. Then compare these new images and soil samples to the 40-year-old Apollo images and soil samples. Repeat this process for all six landing sites.

We now have useful data on the lunar environment over a 50-year period. If NASA wants to build permanent moon bases for long-term stays, you'd think they'd be interested in knowing the effects of living there for 40 years, no?

Except NASA is mapping the moon (again?) and sending prbes into the VA Belts (the Belts we supposedly flew manned missions though without a hitch 40 years ago),


Now, can you understand how this only makes sense if Apolo was just a hoax? We can't go back to those moon sites to collect valuable data, because the sites don't exist. We are studtying the VA Belts because Apollo never went through them. We are mapping the moon because we want to send manned missions to the moon - for the first time. We don't need to do that if the Apollo-era claims were really true.

.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
As for radiation in those parts of the belts, it was mainly high-energy protons and electrons, which could more easily be stopped with the Command Module's skin (thin aluminum and fibrous insulation), and well as what was being worn by the astronauts.

edit on 4/13/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Please cite sources that state thin aluminum and ibrous insulation are an effective shield against tall types of radiation within theVA Belts (high-energy protons, etc.)

Btw - if you'd like to see the sources which utterly refute your claim, I'd be happy to post them for you..

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by turbonium1



Apollo didn't go anywhere near to the VA Belts, let alone fly through them. Their thin aluminum shell would become a coffin within these Belts.

According to the telemetry and radiometric data all Apollo missions flew through the VA belts and received low, yet safe doses of radiation. Would you be able to site any data to back up these two lies or are we just going to put them in the same pile as your "dutch moon rock" evidence?

Captain, you know, the Apollo telemetry tapes that were sent to Goddard (on Goddard's request) are missing.


The only Apollo telemetry data that exists today are the fantasy data tables NASA published by various outside contractors, like, the infamous Biomedical Results of Apollo, SP-368, otherwise known as The Search for Magic Mountain You know the book that NASA published which has fake mountains on the cover.

reply to post by turbonium1


Explain the difference between radiation on earth and in space. Once you understand that, you'll understand why thinner is better. Until you realize that there's a huge difference between the two, you'll keep arguing that lead and DU are the best shields, which will kill anyone onboard.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Ok, fine, the apollo 11 tapes were erased and re-used, they're in no way "missing". If telemetry tapes are so important to you, we'll just ignore that entire mission. How will you explain away the still existing apollo 8,10 and 12-17 telemetry tapes? Also, please site where any claims were made that the picture used for the cover of "Biomedical Results of Apollo" was an original, untouched image (which it clearly isn't). This was all explained to you a while back www.abovetopsecret.com... I guess you must have forgotten.

I am not gonna reply to anyone, but just putting it out there, Kissinger and other officials have already admitted to filming the landing 2 weeks prior to launch, and Stanley Kubrick did it!

reply to post by XaniMatriX


No they didn't. That was a mockumentary that Stanley Kubrick did, to show people how easily they can be fooled. He took bits of other interviews and cut them together to make it say what he wanted it to say.

Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Vernon Walters, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick.

en.wikipedia.org...(film)

That's the only place those people have mentioned that it was a hoax.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Dammit i said i wasn't going to but here i am, Kubrick did not make that mockumentary, and if i ever saw it which i would like to now that u mention it, then i wouldn't have said what i did, also even Wernher von Braun claimed that it would take all of earths resources to put a man on the moon, he said him self it is impossible with even today's technology.

I mean even Gus Grissom said it, he was the one to question their ability to complete the mission in the first place, so they killed him.

reply to post by XaniMatriX


And he can't be wrong, right?

The only place any government official "admitted" we never went was in the mockumentary (current or former official).